Author . 



f <« ^ * 







Title 



•* * * ^ 



Class. 



Imprint. 



Cop/e. 



1«— 47872-1 sfo 



' i^ D D R E S'S 



TO TBS 



DEMOCRACY AND THE PEOPLE 



«I fS> 



UNITED STATES, 



BY IBB 



natiojnal democratic executive committee, 



•<•» 



WASHINGTON : 

M'OIIiL a WITHEROW, PRINTSB8. 

1860. 



^ 



A. D D R E S S . 



UiittBiial geraatratk §imilu (framittce Suums, 

23 i}4 STRGHT, WASUINGTOX CITY, July, 1S60. 



To the Democracy and Ike People 

of the United States 



lease, gave its decision oa the question of 
difference in the Democratic ranks — a de- 
FfiLLOW-oiTiZENs : The election of the cisioEi which previourfly every Democrat 
next President and Vice-President of the! had solemnly pledged himself to abide by, 
Huited States is at hand. Four distinct! lis the authoritative exposition of +he Dem- 
orga.nizations are in the field. Thejoeratic faith. That august tribunal declared 
Republican party, making bold and open the Missouri Compromise act unconstitu- 
war upon the institutions of fifteen sover-jtional and void ; enunciated ih.Q right of 
eign States of this Union. The Constitu- theSouth to take and hold their slave pro- 
tional Union party, repudiating all platforliK|plt'ty in the Territories; denied to the Ter- 
and standing simply on the catch-words ritorial Legislature any right to interfere 
'' Constitution and the Union." Two par-fwith such property, and proclaimed thid; a 
ties, each calling itself Democratic ; one, Territory could only settle the question of • 
however, following the fortunes of one j slavery at the time it came to form a con- 
man, Mr. Douglas, and dif'evulg from theistitution, preparatory to its admission into 
Republicans in making msidious, iiifeteadithe Union as a sovereign State, 
of open, war upon the South. The other, | This v/as looked upon by all sound Dem- 
standing inflexibly on the Constitution oflocratsas the final settlement of the question, 
the country, makes no concealments as and it Wiis believed that the agitation of 
to its interpretation of thiit instrument, {slavery would be forever withdrawn from 
its rallying cry being the equality of tlb!!^tli?S' halls of Congress. Who has kept up 
States. AVe purpose, calmly and impar- this agitation ? Who has resisted this de- 



tially, to survey the field, and to give the 
reasons why the latter party should be con 
!<idered as the Democratic party, and how 



eision ' Who has declared that " It mat- 
ters not what way the Supreme Court may 
hereafter decide as to the abstract question. 



the dearest interests of cotintr}'', riwe, and whether slavery may or may not go into a 
of human progress, are concerned in itsjTerritory under the Constitution, the peo- 
success. jple have the lawful means to introduce or 

Why is it that the Democratic party is! exclude it, as they please?" And, again : 
disrupted, and its wings arrayed in bitter! - No matter what the decision of the Su- 
opposition to each other? Y/hy is it tliat'preme Court may be on that abstract ques- 
lie veterans who achieved its time-honored tion, the right of the people to make a slave 
: riumphs no longer move with the old energy j Territory, or a free Territory, is perfect and 
and harmony to meet the antagonists thcy'complete under the Nebraska bill ?" Mr. 



have so often defeated ? Wha 
':as been thrown into their midst, lighting 
•ip intestine fires, and consuming as with a 
■evouring flame ? Let the plain, unvar- 
nished I'ecord answer. 

In 1856 the Democratic party, after a 
most bitter contest, elected James Buchanan 
l-*rosident, and John C. Breckinridge Vice- 



ttis thus, in his Illinois contest, set the 
people above the Constitution, and violated 
his own pledges in the Kansas-Nebraska 
act. 

• !No\v was presented to the country the 
sad spectacle of oar once valiant champion 
exerting his entire energies to overthrow 
the party which had so honored him; and. 



Prc'^ident of the United States. T|i? ^w^ with the flag of rebellion and insurrection, 
administration was inaugurated and went in his hand, endeavoring- to seduce the party 



into operation. Its poli^j!w*s,foria'shadow- 
ed in the inaugural address. The Supreme 
Court, in a ease before it. the I)rod Scott 



from its prinaipl^Si His friends have not 
hesitated to afiiliate with the Repub- 
lican party to compass his ends. In Ore- 



In Exchange 

Peabody Inst, of Balto. 

June 14 1927 






V 



gon, they united with the Eepublicaiis 
in the canvass of last year and this, and 
Mr. Logan, the leading Republican of 
that State, fought the canvass on the doc- 
trine of squatter sovereignty alone. In New 
Jersey his friends, Messrs. Adrain and 
Eiggs, were returned to Congress by the 
votes of the Republican party, and against 
tl>e regular Democratic party. So with 
Reynolds, Haskiu, and "Clarke, in New 
York ; with Hickman and Schwartz in 
Pennsylvania ; with John (1. Davis in In- 
diana. Republicans were i-eturned to Con- 
gress over Democrats b}^ the opposition, and 
with the collusion of the friends of JMr. 
Douglas. Thus was Arnold defeated in 
Connecticut, Hughes and Ray in Indiana, 
Taylor and Russell in New York, Phillips, 
Leidy, Ahl, (lillis, and Dewart, in Penn- 
sylvania, Hall and Burns in Ohio, and 
Wor ten dyke in New Jersey. Mr. Dou- 
glas himself, all the while, has vehe- 
mently opposed and denounced the Demo- 
cratic administration in the Senate; has 
refused to be governed by the voice of his 
" party ; has warred upon all his Democratic 
colleagues, with a single exception; has 
voted against them, not simply on the vexed 
question of slavery, but against their nomi- 
nations, and has even joined the Republi- 
cans in their eflbrts to exclude from the 
Senate the two Democratic Senators from 
the State of Indiana. 

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 

Owing his election in Illinois to the Sen- 
ate, over his competitor, Mr. Lincoln, to 
the position maintained throughout thati 
canvass, that no matter what was the deci- 
sion of the Supreme Court, the Legislature 
of a Territory could lawfully exclude sla- 
very therefrom by uufriondly legislation, 
he resolved to engraft his heresy of squatter 
sovereignty, of which this was an exempli- 
fication, upon the creed of the Democratic 
party ; and he declared in his Dorr letter 
that on this condition only would he accept 
the nomination of the Convention for the 
Presidency. Thus one man undertook to 
lay down the platform of an entire pjirty, 
and to place out of the pale of that party 
its own President; all but two of its Sena- 



tors; all but some half a dozen of its Rep- 
resentatives in Congress : to brand as anti- 
Democratic the platforms and the men of 
nearly every State where the party was in 
po.ssession of the government. Is it to be 
vroudered ay,hat the South became alarmed; 
and that it lost its confidence in him who 
once was by them trusted and admired ? 

It must be remembered, too, that the 
resistance to Mr. Douglas' nomination was 
not confined to the. Southern States, it 
was wide-spread throughout all the States, 
and was predominant in Oregon, California, 
-Pennsylvania, and New Jersey — States 
whose votes, with an almost united South, 
were essential to success in the coming elec- 
tion. It was also predominant in Massachu- 
setts. 

Lender such circumstances were his claims 
vehemently urged for the Presidency. The 
press, telegraph, and" every art of manage- 
ment was used to secure the election of 
delegates favorable to his nomination. The 
maxim of the immortal Jackson was re- 
versed, and the man was made to seek tlic 
Presidency, not the Presidency the man. 

JTHE CHARLESTON CONVENTION. 

Heretofore, the delegates chosen by the 
Democracy of the United States met in 
National Conventions as brothers, to con- 
sult together in a spirit of harmony and 
concession — to lay down the principles of 
the party, and to nominate candidates lor 
the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, not 
objectionable (in numbers) to any respecta- 
ble portion of the party, and therefore likely 
to receive its united and harmonious sup- 
poi-l. Por this purpose, was the two-third 
rule adopted in the first National Demo- 
cratic Convention that was ever held in this 
country; and actuated by the motives which 
begot it, the Democracy have repeatedly in 
National Conventions, whenever a respect- 
able opposition presented itself, refused to 
nominate some of its ablest statesmen, and 
by the nomination of others less objection.- 
able, have marched on to victory, and the 
development and enforcement of their prin- 
ciples. It will be recollected that Mr. Van 
Buren received a considerable majority at 
tlie Democratic National Convention in 



1844, yet no one then contended that he, 'the Convention. With any other Demo- 
therefore, was entitled to the nomination. 'crat they could have had harmony and 
On the contrary, the Convention, regarding union, and presented to-day the spectacle 
the opposition of the minority to his nom-jof a united and invincible party. We put 
ination as entitled to consideration and re-it to the conscience and the judgment jf 
ypect, refused to nominate him, but nomi-j every honest man, Are fh-y not guilty of 
natcd Mr. Polk, (against whofti there waslsetting up this one man as paramount to the 
no objection,) and under his banner, the union of the States? Are they not guilty 
Democratic party achieved one of itsjof having divided the party? Did they not 
greatest triumphs. It was this principle of thus take "the fii-st, fatal, and irrevocable 
harmony and concession, of respect and con- 
fesidrration for the opinions and views of the 
minority, which bound the Democracy to- 
gether with bands of steel, and made thehi 
invincible on the day of battle. It wasthe 
talismanic motto under which we marched 
t<» victory — the secret and the key-stone to 
our success. 

Far different was the spirit displayed at 
Charleston and Baltimore by the friends of 
Mr. iJouglas They came to nominate 
hini. or break up the Convention. Many 
of their prominent men boldly and openly 
avowed the purpose — '' Rule or ruin," was 
rhi ir motto. They met the opinions and 
views of the seventeen reliable De^iocratic 
States, almost united in opposition to the 
nomination of Mr. Douglas, with insulj and 
derision. 

The Democratic States were wedded to 
They had their favoiites, but 



stride towards disunion of the States?" Froa^ 
this unenviable position no ingenuity nor de- 
vice, nor wholesale and reckless charges 
against others, can relieve them. " Inexora- 
ble logic" stamps the grave crime upon their 
brows. Representing States, nearly all of 
which were hopelessly Black Republican, 
they claimed that they were entitled to dic- 
tate both the platform and the candidates, 
and to this end the system of tactics, which 
we had witnessed outside of the Con- 
vention, was, for the first time in our his- 
tory, (and we earnestly hope the last,) 
steadily and persistently enacted in it. 
Rules were made and violated at pleasure. 
The decisions of an impartial President 
were adopted, and then overruled, as it 
suited their purpose. The usages of Demo- 
cratic Conventions were followed, and 
then shamefully violated, as it accorded 
with their designs. Everything was made 
they put forth no'^claim that even one ofj to bend to the one great purpose for which 



no one man. 



til II! should be nominated. They were wil- 
ling to take any one of the illustrious and 
distinguished statesmen of our party, except 
Mr. (>ouglas. he had made himself obnox- 
ious to them for the reasons already men- 
tioned, and they asked that he should not 
be thrust down their throats. Was the 
request an unusual one? Our history as 
a party shows that it was not. Was 
the 



they assembled — the nomination of Mr. 
Douglas. It cannot certainly be considered 
strange that honorable men, unused to such 
scenes, should leave the Convention, and 
that it was finally virtually broken up. 
The first act of injustice was 

THE UNIT RULE. 

The Committee on Permanent Organiza- 
request an unreasonable one? Who! lion reported tbe following rule, known as 
will .siy so, when they reflect that upon!tlie unit rule : — " That in any State which 
the States which made it. chiefly devolved! has not provided or directed by its State 
the task of electing the nominees of thejC^mveution how its vote may be given, the 
i'orivention ? Yet the Douglas delegates Convention will recognize the right of each 
not only turned a deaf ear to this re-jdelega't- to cast his individual vote." This 
quest, but in the most high-handed audi rule wa.^ in violation of the rule of all for- 
recklcss manner, with sacriligious hands, mcr conventions, which loft to the delega- 
tore down the landmarks of the party, and tion i'rom each State the right to determine 
trampled upon Democratic comity and how the vote should be cast; and it was 
usages, in order to foist WvAi one man iiponj.snmgglf d into the report of the committee 



and brought before the convention in the 
following manner : At the first meeting of 
the committee, when all its members were 
present, this rule was brought before the 
committee and njecteih The committee 
went on, discharged their other }>usinS-5S, 
and adjourne<l to an informal meeting in 
the morning, to enable the chairman to 
make out the report and submit it to the 
committee foi- its approval. At this latter 
meeting, when some six or eight members 
4 of the committee opposed to the rule ware 
absent, not having received notice of a 
called meeting for other business and re- 
garding the work as virtually finished, the 
rule was again brought forward and adopted. 
In this disreputable manner was this rule 
brought before and adopted by the conven- 
tion 



but to receive instructions from their ecu 
stituents. The friends of Mr. Douglas at 
least, should not complain. Words, how- 
ever, are inadequate to express the bitter- 
ness of their animosity. Had not the De- 
mocracy of the South the same right to 
state the terms upon which they would 
hold fellowship with their sister States, as 
Douglas had to dictate to them the platform 
of their democracy ? The southern Stages 
gave their interpretation of the Democratic 
creed, and a portion of them insisted upon 
its recognition by the Convention as the 
condition of their support. They were de- 
nied this, and withdrew from the Conven- 
tion. They at least did nothing more than 
pursue the course which Mr. JDouglas an- 
nounced in his Dorr letter he would pursue 
in the event of his platform not being 



By it the votes of the minority, in thejadopted: for, if he could not stand on a 



delegations of Indiana, Vermont, New York, 
and Ohio, amounting to 27J, or 55 dele- 
gates, opposed to Jlr. Donglas, were thrown 
'for him ; whili- on the final bailor, al Babj 
more, it gave him votes in Mat^sachusotts, 
10; Pennsylvania, 10; New Jersey, 2i; 
Maryland, 2i ; Virgiuiii, -:i ; North Carolina, 
1; Arkansas, H; ^lissouri, 4]; Tennessee, 



different platform as a candidate, it logically 
followed that his position was that of an- 
tagonism and resistance both to platform 
and candidate. 

But, notwithstanding the withdrawal of 
fifty-one delegates, no nomination was made 
at Charleston ; and, after a struggle of ten 
. days, an adjournment was had to Baltimore, 
3; and Kentucky, :> ; in all 41, whieli Leiunder the following resolution : 
would not have received had the ancienti "i^e.o/t-,c/, That when this Convention adjomu., 
usages and rules ot the former Conventions, |it adjourn to reassemble at Baltimore on Mon- 
leaving the majority in each State to deler-jday, the 18th day of Jime next, and that it Is 
mine how the voie of the State should be i ^'^^P^^'^^^^'y recommended to the Domocratk- 

cast, been adhered to. Yet the ink wasir'"*^' "V'® ^^Tf*^ ^^^^""^ •*" ™^''® pvovi.*ion 

1 ji 1 . t 4. J J .1. n , '°^ supplying all vacancies in their respective 

hardly dry that recorded the passage of t he delegations to the Convention when itZll re- 

resolution, betore the very men who clam- assemble." 

ored for its adoption, sought to violate it,. uATTTMnRP- pamvi^mttaxt 

and actually succeeded in their efforts ! I , BALTIMORE CONVENTION. 

In the case of New Jersey, where the! The Convention met at Baltimore. 3Iosf 

State Convention recommended the dele-|°[ ^"^^ States responded to the invitation 

gates to vote as a unit, the Douglas dele- r^°'^® ''^"*^^^? ^"'^ *^®^^ ^^^^g^t^s presented 

gates overruled the decision of the Presi-i'I^^^''^^''^'^^"*^^^^' *D<i asked admission into 

dent that by the term mwrme?;rfe(/ the Con-lf,^^ Convention. How were they treate<l 

vention hv^A provided the mode for casting^y ^"^ friends of Mr. Douglas? 

the vote of the Stato, and allowed t he two' BOGUS DELEGATES— MASSACHUSETTS 

or three Douglas d<>iegato. to cast thoir in-' Benjamin F. Hallett was regularly ap- 

?™.'i!^ . P'^^"^'^^^ ^ ^«^^g^t« fro^ Massachusetts fo 

'^''''XtLE%ON''mNn^FlTTn'i'^ TIlElthe Nationa Convention; the same Con- 

CHARLESTON CON\ENTION. mention appointed K. L. Chaffee as hi.. 

The record vi proceedings shows this alternate. Owing to sickness, Mr. Hallett 

withdrawal was done in sorrow and not in was unable to attend the Convention at 

ungcr; not for the purposes of disunion, Charleston, and, in his absence, Mr. Chaf- 



MISSOURI. 



Convention consisted in an affirmative an- 
swer to the question, Are you for the noin- 
iiiation of Stephen A. Douglas ? 

LOUISIANA AND ALABAMA. 



fee, his alternate, took his place. At Bal-|vote in his life, and who openly avowed 
timore, however, Mr. Ilallett^as present, that he was going to Baltimore to vote for 
but the Convention actually turned him out; Mr. Douglas, in order to break up the 
actually turned out the regular deleyafeyDeuiocratic party! Yet the so-called na- 
and gave the seat to the a/<e?'?2a^e/ Itional convention voted out the regular 

delegates elected by the Democracies of 
these States, and voted in the bogus dele- 
The same coui'se was adopted in regardjgates ! 
to the Eighth Electoral district of Mis-| ARKANSAS. 

souri. Mr. Johnson B. Garder, the regu-l t .i p * . i /-i 

1 1 1 X „ -1 r J In the case oi Arkansas, the Constrea- 

lar delegate, was unceremoniously ousted! . , ,, ,. „,, „ ' , r : = 

^„t ^-p v,;o c^„+ ^^A AT^ n'T7,ii„„ ,.„„, sionai Conventions or the State which nom- 
out 01 nis seat, and Mr. U i^ailon, the al- . , i ,i x^ .• i-i ^ r^ 

tornate, voted in. Heretofore, it has al-'^*^^^^^ ^^"^ Democratic candidates for Con- 
ways been considered that the alternate §''^«^' re-appointea the delegates to Balti- 
acted only in the absence of-theprinciDai;^*^^"^^- ^!t ' ^^o^^^tion deliberately 
but this Convention gravely deterniined )'"^!f ^'^„^ ^f^^..^^?^^^^'^ ^flp^f so elected 
that the true test for admission into that ^? f^^^^^'"^ oistnct ; while they aeclared 

that the regular delegates, elected in the 

same maimer, in the second district, were 

entitled to ^'iCiV seats I and then, in defiance 

of the resolution of the Democratic State 

Convention of Arkansas iu.structing the 

rn, , , ! delegates to vote as a unit, and in utter 

The next step was to vote out t^e regulari^iQl^,tion of their own unit resolution, they 

delegation from the State of Louisiana,; divided the vote of the State, giving the 

who were re-appomted to Baltimore byj^ delegates from the first district the 

ho convention that originally appointed |,:^j,t to cast one vote, and the regular dele- 

them and also to exclude the regular|„-t,, from the second district two votes; 

delegates from Alabama, who were ap-^-^^y^ ^^^^, ^^.^^ ^^^t ^^^^^^^,^ ^^^ ^.^,^l^^j 

from the 
bogus dele- 
to cast the 
^ ■, ri ■ /. X • • , , .full vote of the State ! And yet, after such 

tral Committee of Louisiana, the only asso-^},;^.i,.|,^^ded procedure as this, we are 
ciation m that State having tne power to|j^-,y ^old by the Douglas Committee 
assemble the Democracy in convention, 1^],^. . it ^^^^^t be conceded^that the report 
called together th^Stats convention, repre-.^f ^^^ Committee on Credentials was so 
senting every county m the State, and that lib^.^i ^^^ coneiliatoiy toward the seceders 
conveDtion reappointed tne same delegates ,^,l tl,,i, f,i,,^, ^^ to be hardly just to the 
to Baltimore. A few irresponsible n^eng^t.^ives of the National Democracy 
called another convention, at which the De- f.^m this State I" 
mocracy of the State were not represented 

In the case of Alabama, the Democratic Cen- GEORGIA, 

tral Committee called a new convention, to In the case of Georgia, the Douglas men 
be elected by the Democracy of the several themselves called a State Convention for 
counties. This convention met, and sent the purpose of having the seceding dele- 
back the regular delegates to Baltimore. A gates repudiated by the Democracy of that 
number of persons, however, issued a call, I State. Every shade of the Democratic 
published in only three papers in the State, party of the State participated in the elec- 
addressed to the peo/>('»?, not the Democracy 'tion of delegates. The Convention met, 
of Alabama, for another convention, whichjand upon taking a vote, the seceding or 
laet and appointed a set of delegates, the {regular delegates were sent back to Balti- 
kader of whom never cast a Democratic! more, by a vote of 299 to 41. The forty- 




oae Do«Krla« delegates then boltetf, and also Ereckinndge, omhrie. DousJas. 

appointed deleq^ate??. Yet the Doxielasv^'^fr''"""/: " ••■ 7. 

Committee on Credentials at Isaltimore. m Vermout 5 

defiance again of the resolution of the Massachusetts ... lu 

Georgia Convention instructing their dele- Rhode Island ... 4 

sates to vote as a unit, and in utter vio- S.'^'^'^t*''f"^' - "■ ?^ 

■-. r. , . 1 1 !_• , ^ew York ... Zo 

tion 01 their own rule upon the subject, re- ^^^^.^ .Jer«ev 91. 

ported in favor' of dividing the vote of the Pennsylvania 10 2i lO" 

State, giving one-half to the regular dele- Maryiand ..'. 21 

sates, and oue-half to the bogus appointees Virginia ... 3 

of the 41 bolters 1 But this was too great an -^f^^^ Carolina ... 1 

outrage even for this Convention, and they Louisiana ." " 6 

voted to admit the regular delegates, and Arkansas !!! li 

thus placed the brand of io<7ws upon the Missouri ... 4^ 

brow of H. V. Johnson, the Douglas can- Tennessee ... ^ 

didate for Vice-President! Commenting q^?^^'^^'^-^ »• ^5 J 

upon this action, the Douglas Executive jn^jjj'^'a. .....' ]" '" Tg 

Committee characterizes it as an " extrava- Illinois ... \i 

gance of liberality ■'" Michigan... ... C 

Thus was the Democracy of sovereiirn ^"» i^^conc-m ... 6 

States wantonlv disfranchised in a National ,?.^'* ■■■■; •■• . 

ri ■ 'it t\ . Minnesota ... 4 

Lonvention, and thus were Democrats com-' „ . - ,r ^, , * ,r. 

1, 1 . • 11 X' 11 I,- -^1- t.>n motion 01 Mr. Clark, of Missouri, at the 

peUed to give up all fellowship with men instance of Mr. Ho-l-, of Virginia, the questi-on 
so regardless Oi their own honor, and the was then propounded from the Chair, whether 
welfare and unity of the Democratic party, the nomination of Docglas should or should not 

MR Dorrr 4^ vot \-n\rTVATrr> -'v i Twn '^e.withoutfurtherc&remony, theMnammotf^aeto? 

MR. DOLGLAb ^0T ^OM!^ATED u\ A TWO- the Convention, and of all the delegates present; 

liilkDb \ UiL, .the Chairman distiaciiv requesting that anyde- 

But it is claimed that Mr. Doualas ?ra^ '*'S^^^ who objected ^ whether or not having 
J J 7 J ,1 ■ J J rT>L T^ voted t shouil signify his dissent. Xo deleo-Hta 

nominated h)j a tico-th I ras vote. The Dou<t- ,• ' , j 5 ' »i ^al. ue.ej,-its 

, ,, . "^ „ . . =^ dissented; and tnus, at last, was Stephen A. 

las Lxecutive Committee, m a recent ad- dougl.as unanimousiv nominated in a Conren- 
dress, declare : I tion representing more than two-thirds of all the 

".After all secessions, as well as the refusal of electoral votes, as the candidate bf the Demo- 
ccrtain delegates from Georgia and Arkansas, cratic party for tiie Piesidency of the United 
together with the entire delegations from Texas Estates. 

and Mississippi to occupy their seats, our Na- ^'^^ ^^ irregular thu-t to propose a candidate? 
tional Convention at Baltilnore jet retained 424 ^^ ^^■. Lewis Cass was irregularly nominate i at 
delegates, or 212 electoral votes; being ten more Baltimore, in 1848, which no man ever preteaied, 
than two-thirds of the electoral votes ot the whole/^"^^^'^^ same method was adopted in his case." 
tJnion. But some of these delegates (as in thei Firit. It is not true that General Cass 
case of Georgia) refrained from voting, the ma- ^^s nominated, in 1S48, in a similar man- 
lority of the delegation having retired: others. c u ~ i xi_ • • o 

(as in the case of Arkansas.) although full dele- °^^- /^^^^ f proceaure, the nomination of 
gations, and authorized, in case of any secession. ^ cancudate by resolution prior to his receiv- 
to cast the whole vote of their State, preferred ing two-thirds of the vote of the Couven- 
only to cast that which wou d be a fair propor- tion, where there was a contest, never he- 
ti .n between the seccders and themselves: and fore was witnessed in a National Democratic 
yet others (as in toe case of Delaware, and por- ,-, • rv-i- ■, ■ , 

lions of the delegates from Kentucky and Mis- ^onvenaon. ihis resolution was another 
souri) declined to vote, but refused to secede, innovation upon Democratic usages. 
This atcouuts for the fact that upon the second Second. It is not true that the Chair- 
ballot, % States, Mr. Douglas received only ISU man notified the delegates that those who 
votes; Mr. Breckinridge receiviog 10^, Mr. ^^^ ^^^ ^i^jg^^ ^j^^^lj bg ^^^.^^^^j ^ ^^.^^j 
Guthrie 4 votes, the States ot south Carouna ,> ^i 1 • x- i i- i j ^ 

(eight) and Florida (three) having authorized noi^*^^ ^^^^ resolution. No published proeeea- 
delegates to ani/ Convention at Baltimore. Hereii^g 0* that Convention puts any such re- 
is the ballot as recorded : 'mark into hi? mouth. On the eontrarv. 



8 



every published proceeding, jiKhnliu- those exibted. U 
published at the time in iho Baltimore, "f^i^^^^j^^^JJ^ 



He proceeded to condemn the action 

seceding delegates. 
t^ 1 A,T \' 1 •■•'■• ^^ • S. Gittings, of Marvland, entered a 

Washingtou, and iNcw York papers, report- ^.^otest against tbo propositions'of Mr. Church, 
ed by diflfereut reporters, coiiciusiTcl}' de- ,jf js>v9 York. .\ rule was adopted nt Charleston . 
monstrates th:it ho gave uttortmce to no timt two-third.^ of nil the votes of the elecioraH 
such language. But, even if he did, it was -•oilege was required to uominate a caudidato for 
not in hTs prnver, and wti.s not within the ''■"r.fif "chair explained, that at Charle8iou the 
scope of his duties as a prcsjaing omcer, to j,^^,, president was instructed not to declare any 
dictate to delegates what eour.-io they .should „.„, nominated unless he received two-thirds of 
pursue,or to bind them by his mere //;.<'• r//.^/.'. ide votes of the electoral college, ('J02 votes.) 
Each- delegate had the right to vote, or not "Mr Gittings said there were two-thirds of 
to vote, as° to him .ecmed proper; and .^^he electoral college here, and if gentlemen voted 
uu \un., li.. Lu ... '1 111- who declined to vote, Douglas would be nomi- 

thishewas the sole jiidge, answerable lor ^^^^^..^ ^^ ,^ two-third vote. He hoped there 
his course to his constitiKney alone. 'J he would be more ballots to ."^ee what gentlemen 
Convention had decided that, in aoeoidanee would do, and that Mr. Church would withdraw 
with the established usas«% oi'the party, it his resolution. 

required two-thirds (202\ote:s) ol'the dec- [[^'"''''^ '^ r v-"~''"''''!,VI'~T;k ^ 
1C4U11WV1 V m 1- 1 . * "Mr. Ilogo, of \irgmia, said he hoped there 

toral votes to nominate. 1 he highest vote ^^^^ ^^ „,^^p ^^1,^,^,^ ^„j if ^^^^^ ^^^^j^. 

at any time attained by Mr. Dougla.** was men 5\ ho declined to vote did not vote, he should 

181^, and the whole number cast lUG. treat them as out of the Convention. 

How were 20'-* votes for Mr Douf'la.s to be " ^^r- Church then withdrew his resolution till 

manufactured out of 19(3 votes alllold, 14* "°««''" ^'^""' ^''^ »^«^" 

of which were cast against him? Yet, after this notice served upon these 

„. , , , • . - V /. ^^ delegates, they again refused to vote; 

Eighteen delegates remained in the Con- .^^^ -^ .^ ^j^ j lidiJulous to say that the 
vention as spectators, taking no part whatso- pr^.i^.^j .^^jft record their votes as cast 
ever in its deliberations, and expressly de- 




declanng Mr. Douglas the nominee, when /\c. 1 is; 1 1 » 1 • j • .u 

, ' , ti '^ ^ 8 ' ■ Ut the 18 delegates who remained lu the 

he had received only 17o^ votes. We quote., .. . » c r 

" " ,, . "^ J- I ■ 1, ,1 (Jonventiou a.s spectators, five were from 

the loUowine; proceedines which tneu en- t-- . 1 ■ e n 1 1 

A. *= ^ ^ Iveutucky, six from Delaware, and seven 

^'^ trom Missouri. 

'» The question was loudly culled for. | The five delegates from Kentucky filed 

"Mr. Jones, of Pennsylvania, said he w«s ^^ written prote.-^i, in whi.-h they stated that 

ready to support tbo nominee of the Conveiitl.,n ,i,^„„v, ,u„„ ^, ^ ;..„ 1 ; .1 „ /i^ ♦;„„ 

« v I 1) V, • i. J 1 ♦v, 1 . .V luouch they remained 111 the Lonvention, 

when he shall be nominated by the rules ot the ,*'.,,•' . . • • , ,1 • 

Democratic party. At Cha^;lostoii ii was deter ^^V " iciU not part icipatem its deliberations, 
mined that two-thirds of all the i itcioral college nor hold ourselves or our constituents bound 
was v^ece.ssiiry to a nomination. by its action, but leave both at full liberty 

" It was objected that debate wub nut in order, to act as future circumstances may dictate/' 
• The President (Mr. Tod) h-rulod. (signed by G. A. Caldwell, W. W. Wil- 

•• Mr. Jones raised a que.>jtiv.u ot order — that J- z„„ t\7 i>„„ji„,. o . 1 i> ■c•^^^ « 1 

. .,.,)^ o^„^»„i ,.♦ r'UoJ^...,^ .„ 1 ♦ 1 .. Iinms, >\ . i»raaiey, bamuel IJ. rield, and 
> rule adopted at Cbarlefcton coulu uut be le ,,,, t c \ 

, jiied except on one day's not;' ►■. ^ "'^^- " ^ OU^ov 

•• Mr. Church explained tbc ,u-ri..n ni Cliariv..- - Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, announced, 
.'■u, and said his resoluiion wan ii'tode'l lo in behalf of the six delegaft-s from his Stat*i 
ctiange the rule of instruction ado tru ut Charles- „.i,o remained in the Convention, but refused 
Kill New York had come here 10 pour til on . . .1 . /• <- * .u 1 11 7 /• 

iL.e tioubled waters, and had t-i.-Uullv ondeav-^o ^^te, that •* in future they should dcclitu 
uied to do so. They had yielded evorything/*? ^'*> re.-^erving to them.selves the right to 
except personal honor to heal the divisions which'act hereafter as they deemed proper." 



The vote in favor of the retolution wa^ 
alone taken ' The negative vote wax not 
put to the Convention! .,-, 

But, a3 if still further to demon -it raft- 
thart. the eighteen delegates from Kentucky. 
Delaware, and Missouri, took uo part i'. al! 
iu the proceedings, we call attentioii 'u the 
vote for Vice President, ichm they ayaiu 
refused to vote ! 

Rnt PVPn admittin<^ that the President SEVEN VOTES FROM GEORGIA AND AR 
iiut even admitting tnai ine rresiaem ^^j^g^g coUNTED IN DEFIANCE OF THE 

did give notice that those who did not ob- ujjj^f RULE 

iect should be counted in favor of the rcvso-} oeorgia. 

lution; even admitting the proposition that j ^3^^ ^^^^ ^j,^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^j^,, ^g 

his 

the 



The seven delegates from ^lissouri gave 
notice that they would remain in the Con- 
vention, but would take no part in its de- 
liberations. And these are the votes upon 
which this committee ba.«e their two-third 
vote for Mr. Douglas ! 

NO OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO DISSENT 
FROM THE RESOLUTION NOMINATING 
MR. DOUGLAS. 



mere ipse dixit h^<\ the power to bind ^^j ^tes who refused to vote, with the 14 J 
delegates who did not dissent even in ^^^^J ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ Breckinridge and 

the face of their declarations that they 

would not vote, we now proceed to show 

that no opportunity was afforded to any 



delegate to object to the passage of the reso- 
lution. The extract of the proceedings which 
we have heretofore quoted, shows that debate 
upon this resolution was decided to b'j out of 
order; and, under this ruling, Mr. Jones 
of Pennsylvania, who rose to enter his 
dissent, was uncerenM»niously gagged. Hav- 
ing thus closed their mouths, this commit- 
tee contends that because they did not then 



Lane, added to the 18H given for Mr. 
Douglas, gives only a total of 205, seven 
le.ss than the vote claimed by this commit- 
tee. Where do ihey get the remaining 
seven votos ? From Georgia and Arkansas. 
The State of Georgia was entitled to 10 vote;* 
in the ( ojivcntion, to be cast by 20 dele- 
gates. The Democracy of Georgia, how- 
ever, appointed 40 delegates to cast the 10 
votes, and instructed them to vote as u 
unit, the majority to determine the action 
of the State. Eleven of the delegates re- 



speak, they mu.st be counted as halving voted |„,.^iy^.jiy the Convention, but the major- 



for the resolution 

By no rule ofjustice or of nyiit can tin 
14| votes given for Mr. Breckinridge and 
Mr. Guthie bo couiitetl as having booii 
cast for the resolution dt'claring Mr. Dou- 
glas the nominee Havintr steadily, thmugh 
repeated ballots, vii id against i\Ir. Douglas, 
they were notallowt-d to object to the reso- 
lution when it was offered, nor evfn given 
the opportunity of voting against it IJerc 
are the proceeding at (hissiagc: 



ity rt'iio speeded protested against these 
eleven being allowed to vote, and the Con- 
vention decided, by a vote of 148 to 100, 
that those remaining from that State were 
not, under the un;t rule, entitled to vote 

At Baltimore, the seceding delegates from 
Georgia, reappointed by the State Conven- 
tion, refused to take their scats; but one of 
them, (.Mr Gaulden,) however, came into 
the Convention, but did not pretend to 
vote, i ecause, under the decision of the 



"Mr. Clarke iJitn move.i to declare Stephen Convent io:i, he was not entitled to vote, a;^ 
A. Douglas the Demociaiic nominee for the 
Presidency. 



[Appl.iuse.l 
Mr. Hoge, of Virginia, offered a resolution to 
that effect, which was reud. 

The ro.solution declaring 8. A. Douglas the 



the majority had determined not to take 
their seats in the Convention. 

And yet these are the persons decided 
by the Convention fo be mere spectators, 



unanimous choice of the Convention for thejand not delegates, who had no right to vote. 
Presidency was adopted by a .shout cf ..ye. ardi ,, ^^^^,^ j,^j ^^le in the ConveJition, who 
cheers, which lasted a con.sidcrabie time. , j i » 1 i 



a;e uow represented as delegates by the 
Dougias t'ommittee, and pressed into the 
.oerviee. tor the purpo.se of manufacturing .a 



The band of the Keystoni> C:ub appeared in 
the gallery and struck up a tuiu", whicli was 
greeted with renewed cheers. 

The President (CoL Tod) declared Stephen (wo-tUird vote for .Vjr. Douglas! 
A. Douglas, of Illinois, the unanimous choi'ie of 1 

the Demooracy of the United States as their caa-i abkansas. 

didate for the Presidency, [Loud cheers."] j Cuder the decision of tli« Mtnvantioo, 



10 



the two delegates, Messrs. Flournoy aiul J//;u!eso<a is recorded as having cast her 
Stirmau, who" remained in the convention .A7^ vote for Mr. Douglas, when three of 
at Charleston, were allowed to cast ouelher delegates, entitled to U votes, refused to 
vote; the three bogus delegates from the! vote for him, and withdrew from the Con- 
first Congressional district, one vote; andlvention : 

the withdrawing delegates who were reac-j .^^ij, Becker, of Minnesota, said he and two 
credited to Baltimore, two votes. The lat- of his colleagues desired to announce the cen- 
ter declined to take their seats, and Mr. |clusion at which they had arrived; they went to 
<-!tirn.-in withdrpw Ciiarleston, and came to Baltimore, actuated 

Oiiruicin wiuiurcw. \^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^.^.^ ^^ promote the harmony, union, 

He is thus reported : and integrity of the Democratic party; but uu- 

"Mr Stirman, of Arkansas, when Ws Stateifortuuately for them and the country their de- 
was called, s.id. in justice to himself, and with i^n-es and efforts had failed ; they had been ready 
sorrow, he parte<l with the Tonvention, he could ^^o^ any exertions and sacnaces to promote taeir 
not longer remain after what had been done." iobject, and they now took this slep, in view ot 
° Pill jthe responsibihties resting upon them beture the 

Thus a majority of the delegates actu-jpeoj^le. In conclusion, he announced their de- 
ally admitted to the convention had with-jtermination to vacate their seats, taking with 
drawn or refused to take their seats, and. them the credentials which accredited them to 
under the unit rule, the minority had no ; ^^^e ^"^^t'^^^l I>e°»o<=i'atic Convention." 
right to vote. Yet the committee havej Penasi/lvania is put down as having 
counted both the 5 vote of Mr. Stirman, 'given twenty-two and a-half voteS, when 
who had withdrawn, increased the one voteil2 of her delegates, entitled to six votes, 
awarded by the convention to the bogus! withdrew and joined the other Convention, 
three, to a vote and a half, and thus secur-jAs Pennsylvania is only entitled to 27, she 
ed an additional vote from Arkansas in fa-|cast one and one-half more votes for ilr. 
vor of the resolution. In this way the; Douglas than her delegation were entitled to. 
Douglas Committee got six additional votesl Virginia appears fo have given 3 votes 
from Georgia, and one from Arkansas inifor Mr. Douglas, when only live of her dele- 
favor of the resolution, thus increasing their jgates, entitled to 22 votes, remained in the 
figures from 205 to 212 votes. ' Convention. 

North Carolina had but one delegate, 
entitled to cast one-half ^ vote in the Con- 
vention, yet he is recorded as having cast 



ACTUAL VOTE CAST FOR MR. DOUGLAS. 

We now propose to show, beyond cavil, 
that ir\en the vote (I8I2) given by the 
Douglas Executive Committee, in the fore- 
going table, as having been cast for Mr. 
Douglas, is based on error. Let us examine 2^ 
the matter. 



one vote. 

Tennessee, with only five delegates in the 
Convention, is put down at 3, instead of 



New York is put down at 35 votes, when 
Massachusetis is put down at 10 votes j^ jg ^^^11 known that two of her- delegates 
for Mr. Douglas, when there were only ten^^ithdrew from the Convention, and joined 
delegates, entitled to cast five votes, remain- ^^q other Convention. 

ing in the Convention from that State 1 ^hese make a total of 11 votes, which 
Massachusetts had thirteen votes, repre-, added to the 18 boo-us deleo-ates from Ab- 



sented by 2G delegates ; sixteen of these 
delegates withdrew, and joined the Breck- 
inridge and Lane Convention, leaving, we 
repeat, but ten delegates to cast five votes. 
Vermont was represented by 10 dele- 
gates, with the right to cast five votes. She 
is reported as having given the whole five 
■to 31r. Douglas, instead of 4A, one of the 
delegates (Mr. Stdughton; having with- 
drawn, and joined the other Convention. 



bama, the 12 bogus delegates from Louisi- 
ana, and the 3 bogus delegates from Ark- 
ansas, counting 16 J votes, make a total 
of 272" votes to be substracted from the 
181 J, leaving the vote of Mr. Douglas at 
only 154 ! 

FORCED VOTES. 

But even this was n forced vote — forced 
by a violation of the usages of the Demo- 



11 



cratic party, by which tlie votes of 31 dele- 
gates from New York, io addition to the 
two above alhided to, 12 from Ohio, and 
9 from Indiana, making a total of 52 dele- 
gates entitled to 2G votes, hostile to the 
nomination of Mr. Douglas, were voted for 
him. Subtract these from 154, and it leaves 
128, as the actual strength of Mr. Douglas 
in the Convention ! 

Had the mles and usages of former Con- 
ventions, whereby the vote of each State 
was to be determined by the majority of the 
delegates, been followed, Mr. Douglas would 
have gained 1 vote in Maine, 2^^ votes in 
Connecticut, and lost 10 in Massachusetts, 
2^ in New Jersey, 10 in Pennsylvania,- 2i 
in Maryland, 3 in Virginia, 1 in North Caro- 
lina, 1* in Arkansas, 42 in Missouri, 3 in 
Tennessee, 3 in Kentucky, making a net 
loss of 37i to which add the votes of Ala- 
bama 9, and Louisiana 6, represented by 
the bogus delegates, who would not then 
have gained admission into the Convention, 
and we have 52* votes to be deducted from 
181*, leaving 129 as the true vote under 
the rule of former Conventions, -really cast 
for Mr. Douglas in the Convention. 

CONVENTION AT THE MARYLAND INSTI- 
TUTE. 

1051 votes were cast for President, to 
which must be added ^ vote from Minne- 
sota, 3 votes from Delaware, and 8 votes from 
South Carolina, who took no part in the 
nomination of Mr. Douglas, and who before 
either Convention adjourned endorsed the 
action of the Maryland Institute Convention, 
making in all 117 votes. 

This number has been since largely in- 
creased by the endorsement of delegates 
after the adjournment of the Conven- 
tions, who took no part in the proceed- 
ings of either, or who, having tak^n part in 
the Douglas Convention, have since repu- 
diated its action. 

Thus neither Convention has presented 
a candidate nominated by two-thirds of the 
votes of the electoral colleges. Which, 
therefore, is entitled to the support of the 
Democracy, as the embodiment of its prin- 
ciples, and as endorsed by the weight and 
influence? of the party? 



The committee to whom we have referred 
charge that we are the disunion party, and 
therefore are not entitled to support. Let 
us consider the platforms of the two Con- 
ventions, and make some inquiries into the 
antecedents of its candidates and sup- 
porters. 

• 
PLATFORMS OF THE TWO CONVENTIONS 
IN REGARD TO SLAVERY. 

The platform of the Maryland Institute 
Convent %Mi, endorsed at Charleston by sev- 
enteen sovereign States, is as follows : 

^^ First. That the government of a Tcri-itory 
organized by an act of Congress is provisional 
and temporary; and, during its existence, all 
citizens of the United States have an equal right 
to settle with their property in the Territory 
■without their rights, either of person or proper- 
ty, being destroyed or impaired by Congress- 
ional or Territorial legislation. 

''Second. That it is the duly of the Federal 
Government, in all its departments, to protect, 
when necessary, the rights of persons and prop- 
erty in the Territories, and -wherever else' its 
coi^stitutional authority extends. 

" Third. That -when the settlers in a Territory, 
having an adequate population, form a State 
Constitution, the right of sovereignty com- 
mences: and being consummated by admission 
into the Union, they stand on an equal footing 
-with the people of other States ; and the Slate 
thus organized ought to be admitted into the 
Federal Union, -whether its Constitution pro- 
hibits or recognizes the institution of slavery." 

That of the Front Street Theatre Con- 
vention, is as follows : 

''Resolved, That -we, the Democracy of the 
Union in convention assembled, hereby declare 
our affirmation of the resolutions unanimously 
adopted and declared as a platform of principles 
by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in 
the year 1856, believing that Democratic princi- 
ples are unchangeable in their nature when ap- 
plied to the same subject-matter. 

"Resolved, That it is in accordance -with the 
true interpretation of the Cincinnati Platform, 
that during the existence of Territorial govern- 
ments, the measure of restriction, -whatever it 
may be, imposed by the Federal Constitution on 
the powers of a Territorial legislature over the 
subject of domestic relations, as the same has 
been or shall hereafter be finally determined by 
the Supreme Court of the United States, should 
be respected by all good citizens, and enforced 
with promptness and fidelity by every branch 
of the Federal Government." 

Referring to our platform, the Douglas 



12 



Committee say that " nothing could be morCi But, as in the Cincinnati platform, the 
rague and unsatisfactory than these resolu-i third resolution emphatically declares that 
lions ; they deal in ' truisms' of the tamest when the people come to form their perma- 
significance, or rather, as the controversyinent institutions ; when they come to lay 
then stood, of no significance at all/' It idown their fundamental law, which shall 
may be well to pause here and point atten- govern not only the people, but their legis- 
tion to the fact that this DJuglas Commit- lative bodies and their judicial tribunals, 
:ee shrink from the task of taking tesuejthen they are to decide for themselves 
with these resolution-^, and that they thus whether slavery shall be an institution or 
virtually admit that they contain nc '^loctrine not amongst them. Is the sfiond resolu- 
to condemn. Let the Douglas speakers injtion inconsistent with the first and third? 
the North who have been ringing the chargcl it is in these words: that '< it is the duty 
of •* slave code," "slave code/' take noticejof the Federal Government, in all its de- 
of the virtual admission of their Execntivt-jpartments, to protect, when necessary, the 
Committee that the resolutions contain no rights of persons and property in the Ter- 



ritories, and wherever else its constitution- 
al authority extends.'" Why is government 



instituted at all ? Is it to raise armies ? 



.such doctrine. 

The committee were wL-iO in not attack- 
ing a platform which defies assault. 
EXPOSITION OF THE PLATFORM OF THE j Is it to create navies ? Is it to establish a 
NATIONAL DEMOCRACY. I postal system ? Is it to collect revenue ? 

The first resolution emphatically declaresjis it to build up a magnificent capitol, 
tha^ "the government of a Territory organ-'adorned with works of art and extensive 
ized by an act of Congr-ss is provisional i and beautifully arranged grounds, and . im- 
and temporary," thereby rebutting the con- posing tjdificch 

elusions that such a Territory can frame 
any permanent institut'ons whatever, or 



can establish, during is territorial exist 
ence, any fundamental law whatever. It is 
an inchoate and imperfect government, in- 
stituted for a brief periocf^tho cieature 
of Congress. This resolution in connec- 
tion with the third resolutiois, which de 



of granite and marble ^ Is 
It instituted to raise 8100,000,000 in order 
to expend it — to bring annually together, 
at the national capitol. Senators and Rep- 
re.^-entatives, and then to send them home 
again — to establish courts and build pris- 
ons '/ No ; nothing of the kind. Such 
are not the objects of government ; but 
thej are the instruments of government 



dares that '• when the settlers in a Territo-iibe.se are purely the appliances, by means 
ry, having au adequa'e population, form aj"* which government accomplishes its 
State constitution, the right of sovereignty pu^POse. The object of government is to 
commences; and being consummated by Protect person.^ and property, and nothing 
admission into the Union, they stand on an jeli^e. Thus we see, in order to ac- 
equal footing with rbt- people of othercomplish what seems to be a simple and 
States; and the State thus organized ought pl^iii purpose, resort is had to the largest 
to be admitted into the Federal Union, ^^nd most complicated means, in order to 
whether its constitution prohibits or recog eifect it with certainty and success. Vari- 
uizes the institution of slavery," is cn-|ous countries have differed about their 
tirely consistent with the Kansas-Nebraskaj fori" of government ; but with all these 
act. That the government uf a Territory diffeiences, the purpose has been ever the 
is provisional and temporary, that it is the same — the protection of persons and prop- 
creature of Congress, thehistory of the Ter-I^rty. 
ritories conclusively establishes. Congress 'i'^e second resolution stands inflexibly 



has always either reserved the veto power 
over the acts of a Territorial Legislature, 
or conferred it upon the Governor of the 
Territory, appointed by and with the ad- 
Tioe and consent of the Senate. 



upon this proposition. Our Government 
has done much, from our earliest history, 
to protect the lives and the property of it,s 
citizens on its public domain. Where 
are our armies sent ? To our 



18 



Territories. . For what 7 To protect per 
eons and property, and nothing else 



BRECKINRIDGE AND LANE FALSELJ 
CriARGED WITH DISUNION SENTI- 
MENTS. 



The citizens of our Territories who have 

been environed by Indian foes, and have The effort is made to charge disunion 

fought their way through Indian wars, seutiments upou Breckinridge and Lane, 



realize the importance^ of this protection 
Why was our Navy sent to Paraguay ? It 
was oD account of a citizen of one of the 
tree States — a citizen of Rhode Island. It 



because some individuals now supporting 
them have at some period of their lives 
given utterance to extreme sentiments. See 
with what weight, and point the charge goes 



was a case of offense to property; and iheihome to the Front Street Theatre candi- 
Navy was sent there in order that our gov- 3ates, Douglas and Johnson. One of their 



staunchest and most eloquent advocates on 
the flnor of the convention, was Colonel 
Gauldon, nf Georgia, who at the Charles- 
ton sitting advocated the reopening of the 
We quote from the 



crnment might do its duty in protecting 
that property. A Government is derelict 
to the very purpose of its institution ; it is 
derelict to its obligations to the individual 
citizen, if it fails or hesitates in acting! African alave trade. 
promptly to protect the property as well as! official report 

the person of that citizen. j .. col. Gauldea said he would do all he could 

Thc-se re:<olutions, taken together, do to reconcile bis friends iu Georgia to this doc- 
uot establish slavery in the Territories, trine, and denounced congressional protection 
or recognize the principle of the estab- '^^ •**" *^'^*'''^<^^''°"- la the course of his remarks 
I- I . „.,r^+' ,i„-. V, iTtu- :„ 1 »i . he referrPil to Virgima as " slave- tradint nnd 
lishmentot slavery; but they declare tha l^j^^^.^^^^^^i^g ^i^^^j^ . ^ 

the rights ot property of the citizens of -a delegate from Virginia objected to the des- 

the several States shall be protected by I iguation applied to that Slate 

the Federal arm. They declare, in 6ub-| "-^Ir. Gmlden. — Well, I'll say slave-trading 

stance, that if a citizen of a southern State! <^^°''S''^' ^^^''- ^ ^°"'* °^j®<'* *° *^® designa- 
I 11 ^ •.,,-,„ ^ „ fv -i • ■! Uioi» — I am a .slave breeder — I face the music. 

.>^oall 2^0 to our common ierritories with L-, i * „ i * *• j i>ii », 

*= , . . , "iCome down to my plantation and 111 show voii 

his slaves, his property in those slaves shallL fine lot of young niggers there, and pure AJ- 

be protected. They declare, in substance, jricans. too. 

that this provisional and temporary gov-' "Co!. Gaulden then proceeded to advocate the 

erumeut of a Territory shall not molest ork^'^'^'*' "^ *'^« ^'*"°f° ^^''?, ^"'"^^l *°1 believed 

. 4 , „• I .1 • ul f -.L Massachusetts herself would shortly advocate it. 

.ulertere wua the right ot a southern maniH, ,,i^, „,j ^.^ ^^^ j,, ,,,,^1,1 pa/$2,000 for a 

;o hold his^laves as property m tne ler-|,iegro from Virginia when he could buy him in 
ntory. They declare, in substance, that! Africa for $.50. He denounced the treaty for 
it the 'J ei'iitori;.! Legislature thus inter-! fh« suppression of the African slave trade, 
fores, it IS tlH' duty of the Federal Govern-r'^^^"''' 'le said, was against the laws of God and 
' ■ . "^ , ^ ,. nature s God. ■ The doctrine of non-intervention 

mcut to interpose .ud prevent this uuau-K „,,,j j,, ^pp^^^j j„ that trade. It was inhu- 
tbonzed, uiicotM'.rutional action But man to send back to Africa the negroes at Key 
there is nu intimation, there can be no in- West, half of whom would die and the balance 
fcrence, from the three resolutions, thatlhe delivered over to cannibalism." 
J lie old policy, that Congress can ueitherl SENTIMENTS OF H. V. JOHNSON, 
establish nor prohibit slavery, has been But in controversy we should go to the 
d.-parted from in the slightest degree. It heart of the matter." How will Mr. John- 
is purely a question of property; it is pure-Lyn ring this charge to advance his prospects 
ly a question of the protection of the rights for the Vice Presidencv? He was a Sena- 
oi' Mjuthern men equally with the rights of'tor in Congress iu 1848, and on the 7th of 
)i.)! thern men. It is not a concession of! j^iy of that year he made a speech to prove 
liK' North; they yield none of their rights.! that Congress had the power and ought to 
h is simply an act of equal justice upon 'intervene to protect slave property in the 
the part of the North; it is a demand of Territories. (See Appendix to the Con- 
right upon the part of the South. 'gressional Globe, 1st sess., 30th Congress. 



« 



page 891.) Our f^paCi^ forbidn extended .and on the same constitutioaal basis of other 
extracts. He said: species of property.- ' 

"In no event can the slavehokler of tlie Sonth ^ ^^^ pouglas, m blS letter to Hon. Wm. 
be excluded from settling in such Territory with | A. Ixichardsou, reaa before the Convention, 
his property of every description." « * *'-" -"j uses this emphatic language: "■Intervention 

"Since, "therefore, as I have shown, Congress], „g„„s dlsuhiov .'' Then, according to Mr. 
has no ])0wer to prohibit slaverv, they cannot }t-.„„„i„, ar, / 7 7 • 77 ^7 

delegate such a power to the inhabitants of the' ^o^^gl'^«^ f^'; /^^^'^^^"^ '"^^ colleague on the 
Territory; they cannot authorize the TerritoriaY^'-/'^'''^ ^'^''tWi /"•'», ^S « dtsumonist. And, 
Legislature to do that which they have no power | according to the second resolution offered by 
to do. _The stream cannot rise higher than itsj^Ji., Johnson before the Georgia Convention, 
'"''Se institutLn of slavlry is guaranteed by|?^ «^^« P^^dged not to support or vote for 
the Constitution of the United States, and it has M-V: Douglas. 

the same protection thrown around it, which CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY, 

guards our citizens against the granting of titles But in our survey of the field we must 
of nobility, or the establishment of religion ; not neglect the Constitutional Union party, 
therelbre. Congress would be as much bound tolr, • ii , 1 • t 

veto an act of Territorial legislation prohibiting! J^-l''",''^'^ f ?-^' "l^^^^i" ^ ^«^,g^ise._ In 
it, as an act violating these rights of every citizen [If'^O they had a piattorm^ ot the strictest 
of the Republic." jkind, and a secret organization protected 

To show that Mr. Johnson has not aban-j^^y ^^""^^ '^""'^ f^^!"' T^^"" ^'-^^^ waged 
doned his doctrine of Congressional protec-l^^^" }^PO'i^ o'^^' foreign citizens and upon a 
tion, we quote the following resolutions i^^^*'"^!^ religious creed. The same leaders 
drafted and then reported by him to thej"«^ ^'^'^^ fo^"^^'^'"^ repudiating platforms- 
Convention of Georgia, held on the 4th day r'''^^*^^^^■^ themselves as_ the only Union 
of last June, which appointed him as a P^^'ty'/^^*^ /^^^ ^i' ^^^^« ^^t^f '-\t ^^«J d^^i^^^"^- 
delesate to the National Convention at I ^J^ii of their principles. _ Their platform is 



Baltimore: 



the "Constitution and the Union. 



The 



, D , 1 rr, ^ ^ ., r,- • ,. ^Republicans assert they are for the Consti- 
^- Kcsoli'i'd, that we reamrni Ihc Cincinnati , ,• 1 ., tt • "^ j_ ^i • i ./> 
platform, with the following additional propo- button and the Lnion, yet their platiorm 
sitions: gives an interpretation to the Constitution 
"1st. That the citizens of the United States, which will destroy that Constitution and 
have an equal right to settle M-/?/i their property of l^^^.Q^■^ tl^js Ul^jo^ p.^j. ^^^jj^^jj ^^ i^^^.^ 
ony Icind, in tJie organized rerritories ot the 1 • 1 ,\ ■. nr i^-n ^1 ^• 

United States, and that under the decision of the ^^S^ autnonty— 3Ir. Fillmore, the candi- 
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of date for the Presidency, in 18i>6^of the very 
Dred Scott, which we recognize as the correct ex- men who constitute the Constitutional Union 
position of the Constitution in this particular jpa^-ty ,,f tjif present clay. The Douglas 
slave property sta7ids itponthe same footimi as all,,. ' , ^ j^, _e .1 /-1 ■ 
other descriptions of property, and that neither ^/„|Demoerats avow they are for the Consfcitu- 
Gencral Government, NOR ANY TERRITORIAL |tion and the Union; yet their platform, as 
GOVERNMENT, cayj e^ec«^?-o?/ or /»(^wf7-Mcr(yi^ /o; interpreted by their standard bearer, Mr. 
slave property in the common Territories, anyjDou^las, tramples under foot the decision 
more than the right to any other description of\ n ,P c> /< ^ 1 • i • 1 

property; that property of all kinds, slaves asj^f the feuprcme Court, proclaims a higher 
well as any other species of property, in all thellaw, and permits the first squatters in a 
Territories, stand upon the same equal and In-oad I Territory to exclude the people of fifteen 
constitutional basis, and subject tx) lik« in-iiidples sovereign States therefrom; reducing them 
of recoy7idio7i and protcctiomn the LEGISLATIVE, j^_ _ ... .i!j.-__. .i.> 1 i .i.-_ i-.,i_ 



Judicial, and Executive Departments of the Govern- 
ment. 

"2d. That Ave will support any man who may 
be nominated by the Baltimore Convention for 
the Presidency, Avho holds the principles set forth 
in the foregoing proposition, and who will give 



to a condition of vassalage, and doing little 
less injury to the Constitution of the country 
than the platform of the llepublicans. 

The true Democratic party stands on the 
Constitution and the Union, and their in- 



them his indorsement, and that we will not holdjterpretation recognizes the perfect equality 
ourselves bound to support any man, who may be of the States, and maintains inviolate the 
the nominee who entertains principles incon-i ^j^^g ^^ ^^^ g^^.^nt necessities, and history 
sistent with those set torth in the above i)ropos!- * , .,1 i^-^ ^1 ^ 

lions, or who denies that slave property in thel^bich brought intooneconfederapy so many 
Territories does not stand on an equarfootingjindependent sovereignties. , Which of these 



lo 



three Intcrpretatirms is the interpretation of 
the Oonstitntional Union party? Or v, ill tliey 
scorn each and all, and fall back upon their 
repudiated and odious platform of 1850V 
We feel that an intelligent people will de- 
mand at the hands of men asking their favor a 
frank avowal of their principles. We feel that 
the}- vrill recognize as a true Union party 
the organization which stands boldly on the 
Constitution of their country, and proclaims 
the just doctrine of the equality of the States. 

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY_. 

Vv^e have i-eferred to the warnings of Mr. 
Fillmore against this party. The public mind 
has become alarmed. The mischievous effect 
of its doctrines has been shown in the John 
Brown raid, and the recent buinings and 
pillages in Northern Texas. Bold, unscru- 
pulous, and vindictive leaders are at its head. 
They have adopted the once scorned dogma of 
Garrison, that slavery is a covenant with hell 
and an agreement with dejith. Sumner pro- 
claims the barbarism of .slavery. Burlin- 
game the necessity of an anti-slavery Bible 
and an auti -slavery God. Seward and Lin- 
coln the irrepressible conflict. They, with a 
fanaticism rapidly getting intense as that 
of Peter the Hermit, are fanning the flames 
of sectional strife soon to break out in intes- 
tine war. They are practically leading a 
crusade against the South. Tha)iks to the 
mercies of the Almighty, brotherly love, the 
memories of a glorious history, the common 
sacrifices of our fathers, the unparalleled pro- 
gress to empire and renown of our people, 
have not lost their influence. Honest and 
true men all through the North have de-l 
termined to crush out the monster of North- 
ern disunion afnd fanaticism. A 2>aralysis 
has come over the energies of the inciters of 
servile war. The common sense of the peo- 
ple revolts at the consummation of their foul 
designs. Good men and true are rallying 
from the mountains and the plains, from city 
and country, from the farm, the shop, and 
the busy marts of trade, to preserve and per- 
petuate the glorious heritage bequeathed to 
us by our fathers. 

DOUGLAS AND REPUBLICANISM. 

But where is Mr. Douglas in this strtiggle 
of good men and true, for the perpetuation 
of the faith of these fathers? He is allied 



with the Constitutional Union party of the 
South, and quasi allied with the Republican 
party at the North. He, like Seward, has 
proclaimed the higher law. At Springfield 
he declared that the citizen of a Territory 

"does XOT DEKIVE PO^VER from CO-NXiRESS, FOR 
HE HAS ALREADY DERIVED IT FROM GoD Al- 

MTGiiTY." One of his principal supporters, 
M*. H. L. Seymour, in his recent speech 
at Ilochester, New York, said: "After 

ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID ON THE SUBJECT, 
THERE IS A niGHER LAW. ItS FIAT IS GIVEN 
IN THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE. PoPULAR 
SOVEREIGNTY IS THE EXPRESSION OF THAT 

LAW." Mr. Hickman, the boldest and clearest 
intellect of the folloAvers of Mr. Douglas, now 
upbraids him for his timidity and treachery, 
has manfully cast off the mask, and is nov\^ 
an avowed leader in the Republican ranks. 
His fugleman, Forney, openly advocates a 
coalition with the Black Republicans to defeat 
our candidates. We see presses, and lead- 
ers, and orators pulling down the Douglas 
and raising the Republican flag. We say 
to the Democrats of the olden time and 
I to the young Democrats of the present day, 
[beware of the insidious advances of the 
[enemy. Beware of the first fatal step to- 
i wards Republicanism and towards disunion. 
iRally to the old flag. Rally on the tried 
ileaders. Be not sloughed oft" into the Abo- 
lition camp with Hickman and others. We 
implore you to weigh these facts, and we 
believe you will be satisfied of the tendency 
of the Douglas organization towards Re- 
publicanism. Indeed the entire organization 
will melt and is melting away. The free- 
soilism of it is now being absorbed in the 
Republican ranks, and the true Democrats, 
of whom there are large numbers, are falling 
back into line with the old comrades, with 
whom they have achieved the triumphs of 
the Democraey. 

BRECKINRIDGE AND DOUGLAS. 
Consider the spectacle presented to us by 
the Democratic and the Douglas candidates 
for the Presidency. ]Mr. Breckinridge has 
retired to his quiet home in Kentucky, there 
calmly and with dignity to await the verdict 
of the people. Mr. Douglas is ti-a versing 
Uifi coimti'y, especially in the north and east, 
dosing out the panacea of "squatter sove- 



16 



reignty" as a remedy for all our ills, appeal- j reaching from the cold North down even to 
ingto the "higher law," and endeavoring, tropical heat— -a population now large and 
with the maffic of his words and his presence, most rapitlly increasing — the enjoyment of 
f(i cajole the people to his s-upport. In this|abundant comforts and even great luxuries 
f..j will miserably fail. In the exalted po-/jf life — a union of industrial interests, va- 
•inon of President of these United States, iried by soil and climate — a paternal and 
the people will exact something more than|kindly government, founded on the principle 
tlie qualities of a traveling mountebank. | for which we have ever and shall ever con- 
Mr. Douglas in his recent letter has averredjtend. Shall di-cord enter this magnificent 



ihat his object was to take the question of 
slavery out of the halls of Congress; and 
yet during this wliole Administration he has 



abode? Shall the Union be broken upV 
Shall poverty, anxiety, distress, and internal 
wars take the place of wealth, content, and 



kept up the slavery agitation with a per- 1 successful enterprise? Our countrymen, dc 

not close your eyes to the danger of tliis '. 
When the danger comes, it will come from 
the selfish ambition of individuals, wliose 
talents enable them to sow the seed of strife 
in a party which for many generations has 
supported this dorious government, founded 
on political and social rights to every citi- 
zen — a government distinguished alike foi' 
its benignity, its wisdom, and its strength — 
the glory of the age, and the admiration of 
the ;(i-iends of fr&dom, and of the right* 
of man throughout the habitable globe. 

Fellow-Democrats, to the work! Stand 
on your platform, and cling to your candi- 
dates. You are contending for the Consti 
tution of your country, and for the union of 
these States. Let us fight the good fight, 
as our fathers did. Our candidates have 
been baptized in blood in the wars of the. 
country, and have in every act of their lives 



sistency and a fierceness amounting almost 
to insanity. It has caused him to neglect 
<:very other duty in Congress except the 
defence of his consistency, and the advocacy 
of his views in regard to slavery. He has 
been remarkalde for his facility in dodging 
votes, and when he^lid vote, for his votes 
with the llepublicans. With that party 
not only did he vote on the Lecompton 
question, but on most incidental questions, 
in total inconsistency with his former votes. 
With that party he coalesced, not simply in 
his votes on such minor questions as the 
election of a public printer, &c., but in de- 
termining v.-ho in the Senate of the United 
States were the representative^ of the sove- 
reign States of Indiana. He has been a 
rebel, both to the organization and to the 
prineiples.of the party. He has voted against 
its platform and its candidates 



To conciliate Republican votes, he has signalized their patriotism and self-sacrifice, 
indulged in vulgar flings at the South. The crisis of the times has placed them be 
He prefers the clams of Rhode Island to fore the people. You know their principles 
the niggers of the South. "I have much ""' " "" * ' "^ 

MORE FONDNESS FOR YOUR CLAMS THAN I HAVE 

FOR THEIR NIGGERS." Thcsc things havc 
sunk deep into the hearts of the American 
Democracy ; and even if he should extend 
his clam-baking operations to the coasts 
of Labrador, trying on his way the infinite 
relish of freshly-caught mackerel, halibut, 
and cod, he will find that whilst the people 



There is no silence as in the case of Bell and 
Everett. There are no shuffling disguises a.s 
in the case' of Douglas and Johnson. There 
is no war upon both the Constitution and 
the Union, as in the case of Lincoln (the 
sympathizer with Mexico, and now the 
sympatizer with fanaticism) and Hamlin. 
But their raottf) and our motto is — 

" The Constitution and the Equalitv 



are pleased with the jovial qualities of thejOF the States: these are symbols of ever- 
hail, well-met fellov.', they will despise and lasting union. Let these be the rallying 
reprobate the public man. 'cries of the people!" 

Words cannot express the magnitude of j In behalf of the National Democratic 
the blessings which a benignant Providence Executive Committee, 
has showered upon us — a vast and extended ISAAC I. STEVENS, 

area, spanning the entire continent, aad| Chaii-man. 




m£ 



